[arp242]

It's not; anti-Semitism as we know today is very much rooted in racial science (well, "science") of the 19th century. Before that it was an anti-religious thing: anti-Judaism, which was a markedly different and similar to Anti-Catholicism, anti-Protestantism, and things like that.

Especially in the context of the Nazi ideology, this really matters. Recall that the Nazis killed more Slavs than Jews, who were also considered racially inferior, and the plan was to kill many more. Nazis treated the Danish, Dutch, French, English, etc. much better (no mass executions of prisoners of war, and the occupation of those countries was markedly different from the occupation of Slavic countries).

[tptacek]

There's a lot of weird things in this comment, but the weirdest is the claim that antisemitism is a 19th century innovation; Google "expulsion of the Jews from" and see where it autocompletes for you. Similarly: pogroms in the Pale of Settlement were not motivated by (and predate) 19th century race science.

[Kranar]

No one would dispute that hatred towards Jews existed for 1000s of years, but I think you're mincing words here and being somewhat uncharitable. The kind of anti-Semitism that was based on an innate racial inferiority rather than based on religion and culture was very much a 19th century development and it was that specific form of hatred towards Jews that was widespread across Europe and America rather than an opposition towards Jewish customs and beliefs.

Indeed the term "anti-Semitism" was coined to reflect the shift in hatred towards Jews from one rooted in culture and religion to one root in race. The very fact that you acknowledge that pogroms prior to the 19th century were not based on race suggests that if you had just taken the time to actually understand what was being said you could have avoided your confusion.

[adamwk]

But I don't think that's true either. See: the Inquisition where even converted Jews weren't safe

[mistermann]

> Indeed the term "anti-Semitism" was coined to reflect the shift in hatred towards Jews from one rooted in culture and religion to one root in race.

It's kind of interesting how any such distinctions have been essentially eliminated. Nature is very mysterious.

[mmorriso]

While the impact on Jewish individuals was the same, it's true that Nazi style antisemitism focused on them as a racial group (Their ancestry), whereas previously they were targeted as a faith group (What they believed).

Your example of the Pale actually makes the point; Converting to Russian Orthodox actually released you from the rules imposed on Jews within the Pale. Conversion wouldn't save you from Nazis.

[wolf550e]

Eh.

Russian folk wisdom says "Жид крещёный - что вор прощеный. Веры нет" - "A converted Jew (slur) is like a forgiven thief - no faith/trust".

And in later times, "бить будут не по паспорту, а по морде" - you'll get beaten up on your face, not on (according to) your identification papers, a play on words meaning if you look Jewish, it doesn't matter that your papers say otherwise.

[arp242]

I didn't claim that "antisemitism is a 19th century innovation", I claimed that Anti-Semitism in the sense of "against the Semitic race", as I described in my previous comment, is a 19th century invention. A distinction I made to describe a specific part of the Nazi world view.

This is not "weird thing", it's a mainstream view that I got from mainstream Jewish authors on the history of Jews. But hey, maybe those are also weird *shrug*

And your extremely condescending attitude is not appreciated.

[tptacek]

So, I didn’t read you that way, and, fair enough. But that’s still not true. Antisemitism was racialized in Spain, too, and I think you can find sources for earlier strains. And all “scientific racism” will of course stem from the 1800s, along with science itself.

[arp242]

Actually I believe it was invented in France, although I could be misremembering that. It was certainly big in France for a time. I didn't mean to imply it was uniquely German.

[FdbkHb]

> Google "expulsion of the Jews from"

Hatred of a people based solely on religion while despicable has a different nature from racial hatred.

If you had googled "expulsion of jews from" you would notice there were many times they were allowed to stay if they converted (at least, give the appearance of). The Marrano during the times of the Spanish Inquisition is a notable example.

But if you are a jew in the era of antisemitism, there is nothing you can adopt to not be a jew. In the eyes of racists, you will always be a jew and the object of their hatred.

So, yes, 19th century antisemitism has a markedly specific nature that doesn't compare to the past.

[bsder]

Um, please explain The Merchant of Venice. c. 1600 in an England which basically had no Jews.

Or the Edict of Explusion c. 1290.

Or the Jews being under the direct whim and jurisdiction of the king. c. 1066

I can go further and further back ...

Anti-semitism is old.

[arp242]

Again, anti-Judaism is not the same thing. This is just "normal" religious persecution that has been around since forever and that many (if not all) religious groups have experienced at some point or another. Does this matter? Well, in the context of discussing Nazi world-views it does.

None of this is especially controversial among mainstream Jewish historians, as far as I know.

[reissbaker]

I think you're trying to draw a hard line distinction where only a blurry evolution exists. While antisemitism in the 19th and 20th centuries had some unique characteristics that co-evolved with other forms of racism, antisemitism existed before the 19th century and there are clear evolutionary roots e.g. "Jewish badges" [1] that date back to the 1100s, which the famous "Jude" badge from the Nazi era was a continuation of.

I don't know of many mainstream Jewish historians who would agree that antisemitism didn't exist prior to the 19th century. They would agree that racial antisemitism developed largely during the 19th century alongside pseudoscience about race in general, but that religious and economic antisemitism has existed for over a thousand years, and that the latter two also informed the development of the racial version. [2] For example, the Rhineland massacres in 1096 are generally considered to be antisemitic [3] and part of a sequence of historical mass murders of Jews that lead to the Holocaust, despite Europe not then having a clear concept of race.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhineland_massacres

[dudefeliciano]

i think the main difference is that in the middle ages conversion to Christianity was a way to avoid persecution, while this was not an option under nazi Germany.

[HelloNurse]

Racial excuses replaced religious excuses.

[arp242]

> I don't know of many mainstream Jewish historians who would agree that antisemitism didn't exist prior to the 19th century.

Depends on your your definition of "antisemitism"; if you mean "general prejudice against Jews", then sure, obvious that existed. But if you you mean "anti-Semitism against the Semitic race (as opposed to the Aryan race)", then that's quite a different thing.

I don't think it's a hard-line distinction; obviously there's overlap and nuance. But the move from more or less generic religious persecution to racial-based persecution was a very marked and notable shift that many many people have commented on, and that's really not very controversial.

Does this distinction matter? Well, it seems to me that it does. I don't think the holocaust would have happened without this. And all of this strongly shaped Nazi world-views, which was really the point I wanted to make.

[reissbaker]

I linked to a lot of resources that cover the points you're trying to make and IMO it'd be worth reading them if you want to have an informed discussion of antisemitism, e.g. antisemitic events that occurred hundreds of years prior to the 19th century and are viewed by mainstream scholarship as being part of European antisemitism that directly led to the Holocaust.

[Kranar]

When you say a lot, do you just mean the three Wikipedia articles? Because I looked at them and they reaffirm what the other person is saying, that there is a distinction between anti-Judaism and antisemitism. In fact right in the very link you post it states:

>The development of racial and religious antisemitism has historically been encouraged by the concept of anti-Judaism, which is distinct from antisemitism itself.

It's that distinction that is being discussed, and the other Wikipedia articles which do recognize that distinction point out that this was a 19th century development:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

[greedo]

This is splitting hairs in an attempt to minimize both anti-Semitism and the acts of the Nazis.

[Kranar]

The idea that it's minimizing to point out that antisemitism emerged as a form of hatred on the basis of ones race, who one is inherently and born as, as opposed to one's beliefs or customs is really quite an absurd position to take and I hope you'd take some time to reflect on your overall position on this matter.

[greedo]

But you're assuming Nazi ideology was coherent, when it clearly wasn't in almost anything. The "racial" anti-Semitism was merely a fig leaf provided by quack science of the times.

And yes, the Nazis viewed the Slavic peoples as "Untermensch", but didn't harbor as much animus towards them. They were simply in the way of the Nazi expansionist policy of Lebensraum. Whereas anti-Semitism was extremely widespread through German society and further inflamed by the Nazis.

And no, "anti-Semitism as we know today is very much rooted in racial science" is not accurate one bit. The majority of today's anti-Semitism is purely religious in nature. Oh, some white supremacists might try to invoke some bullshit the racial inferiority of the Jews, but the real hate is religious in nature. Combine that with anti-Zionism (which is often a mask for anti-Semitism) and it all falls apart.

And it's incredibly disingenuous to trot out the usual arguments about how the Nazis killed more Slavs than Jew, etc etc. These are part of the playbook that attempts to minimize the Shoah.

Finally, the bit about how the Nazis treated the Western countries much better, EXCLUDES the Jewish citizens of those countries.

I'm pretty sure you're not arguing in good faith at all, but you seem to be wanting to keep this going.

[arp242]

> But you're assuming Nazi ideology was coherent

I very explicitly said it's not: "A lot of the Nazi rhetoric isn't even internally consistent and it was all a load of bollocks"

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Your unhinged ridiculous accusations which directly contradicts what I wrote suggests you're not.

I did not mention or talk about contemporary antisemitism. Don't try to twist things.

And yes, obviously "they treated the Dutch, English etc. better" excludes Jews. It also excludes communists, and gays, and some other groups. This is a boring "gotcha" type argument.

[greedo]

You literally said:

"It's not; anti-Semitism as we know today is very much rooted in racial science (well, "science") of the 19th century."

So yes, you were talking about contemporary anti-semitism.

[arp242]

Anti-Semitism in the context of what we're talking about.

There are many different flavours of antisemitism: from Judeophobia to unhinged criticism of the Israeli state to racial. And all of those can be further subdivided. All of these are very different and worth commenting on, but all I did was describe anti-Semitism as viewed by the Nazi world-view and some background on that. That is the only thing I'm talking about. I don't think I need to include an essay on antisemitism to make such a point.